1) Being a National Academy member means you're accomplished at something, but not necessarily climate studies. Seitz, for example, was an accomplished solid-state physicist who made his name applying quantum concepts to the study of bulk metals, and he's often cited as helping give Bardeen the ideas needed to invent the transistor. He's presently 95 years old, owns (or owned) a company which operates coal-fired power plants, used to work for the tobacco industry telling people cigarette smoke was harmless, followed that up with a paid position arguing that CFCs don't harm the ozone layer, etc. He hasn't published anything on climate in a peer-reviewed journal, and the NAS has distanced themselves from him sharply of late. Basically, I think he's a combination of senile, bought off, or talking out of his ass.

2) Lindzen actually is a climatologist, though also one on the payroll of ExxonMobil. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he came to his conclusion first, then accepted research money from Exxon to fund research on that point. Going over his recent publications, however, the only ones that refute global warming theory are book chapters and other unreviewed media, which explains why he didn't show up in the IPCC study. Nonetheless, even if you assume that there's a consortium of journal reviewers blocking his publications or whatever, it's just one guy. And even he basically says that global warming is real, just not especially dangerous.

That said, it's worth noting the recent UCS report on what ExxonMobil does with its money. (link)

3) The IPCC adjusts their models and estimates frequently, which is a healthy sign that they're trying to be fair. There's always been a range of opinions when you get down to exact numbers-- climate is complicated. Nonetheless, if someone told you "Cigarette smoke is still dangerous, but it might cause cancer 25% slower than originally thought", it's not exactly a ringing endorsement to smoke. The previous refinements to their models raised the rates, so they've moved both directionms recently. The new IPCC stance is basically that the global warming hypothesis is the same as it was, but the rates of change are likely a bit slower. That's good news (more time to make adjustments), but it's not exactly comforting.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com